From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/7] mm, bpf: Introduce try_alloc_pages() for opportunistic page allocation
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:44:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+5=6bbq-1o1hGVX6UCHOS1fG6Hh5--C69i_Zivc8hCrw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ntbykvhaw7ohuu5nb7x4g4kqrlqkxfzb5ydjxpxszayfvewkrn@lvx22b7p7it5>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:47 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 03:00:08PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:19 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > >
>
> Sorry missed your response here.
>
> > > What about set_page_owner() from post_alloc_hook() and it's stackdepot
> > > saving. I guess not an issue until try_alloc_pages() gets used later, so
> > > just a mental note that it has to be resolved before. Or is it actually safe?
> >
> > set_page_owner() should be fine.
> > save_stack() has in_page_owner recursion protection mechanism.
> >
> > stack_depot_save_flags() may be problematic if there is another
> > path to it.
> > I guess I can do:
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/stackdepot.c b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > index 245d5b416699..61772bc4b811 100644
> > --- a/lib/stackdepot.c
> > +++ b/lib/stackdepot.c
> > @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ depot_stack_handle_t
> > stack_depot_save_flags(unsigned long *entries,
> > prealloc = page_address(page);
> > }
>
> There is alloc_pages(gfp_nested_mask(alloc_flags)...) just couple of
> lines above. How about setting can_alloc false along with the below
> change for this case?
argh. Just noticed this code path:
free_pages_prepare
__reset_page_owner
save_stack(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
stack_depot_save(entries, nr_entries, flags);
stack_depot_save_flags(entries, nr_entries, alloc_flags,
STACK_DEPOT_FLAG_CAN_ALLOC);
bool can_alloc = depot_flags & STACK_DEPOT_FLAG_CAN_ALLOC;
if (unlikely(can_alloc && !READ_ONCE(new_pool))) {
page = alloc_pages(gfp_nested_mask(alloc_flags),
DEPOT_POOL_ORDER);
> Or we can set ALLOC_TRYLOCK in core alloc_pages()
> for !gfpflags_allow_spinning().
so gfpflags_allow_spinning() approach doesn't work out of the door,
since free_pages don't have gfp flags.
Passing FPI flags everywhere is too much churn.
I guess using the same gfp flags as try_alloc_pages()
in __reset_page_owner() should work.
That will make gfpflags_allow_spinning()==true in stack_depot.
In an earlier email I convinced myself that
current->in_page_owner recursion protection in save_stack()
is enough, but looks like it's not.
We could be hitting tracepoint somewhere inside alloc_pages() then
alloc_pages -> tracepoint -> bpf
-> free_pages_nolock -> __free_unref_page -> free_pages_prepare
-> save_stack(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
and this save_stack will be called for the first time.
It's not recursing into itself. Then:
-> stack_depot_save_flags -> alloc_pages(GFP_NOWAIT) -> boom.
So looks like __reset_page_owner() has to use
!gfpflags_allow_spinning() flags and
stack_depot_save_flags() has
to do:
if (!gfpflags_allow_spinning(alloc_flags))
can_alloc = false;
raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&pool_lock, ..)
Will code this up. Unless there are better ideas.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-16 2:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-15 2:17 [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/7] bpf, mm: Introduce try_alloc_pages() Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 2:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/7] mm, bpf: Introduce try_alloc_pages() for opportunistic page allocation Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 11:19 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-15 23:00 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 23:47 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-01-16 2:44 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2025-01-15 23:16 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-01-17 18:19 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-01-15 2:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/7] mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock() Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 11:47 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-15 23:15 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-16 8:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-17 18:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-01-15 2:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/7] locking/local_lock: Introduce local_trylock_irqsave() Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 2:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 7:22 ` Sebastian Sewior
2025-01-15 14:22 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-16 2:20 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-17 20:33 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-01-21 15:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-21 16:43 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-01-22 1:35 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 2:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/7] memcg: Use trylock to access memcg stock_lock Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 16:07 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-16 0:12 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-01-16 2:22 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-16 20:07 ` Joshua Hahn
2025-01-17 17:36 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-01-15 2:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 5/7] mm, bpf: Use memcg in try_alloc_pages() Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 17:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-16 0:24 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-01-15 2:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 6/7] mm: Make failslab, kfence, kmemleak aware of trylock mode Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 17:57 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-16 2:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 2:17 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 7/7] bpf: Use try_alloc_pages() to allocate pages for bpf needs Alexei Starovoitov
2025-01-15 18:02 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-16 2:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAADnVQ+5=6bbq-1o1hGVX6UCHOS1fG6Hh5--C69i_Zivc8hCrw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox